Outside the GOP nominating him, I don't see how Trump running as an independent doesn't = Perot.

If I were given to cabals, and I am, I would suggest to Romney that he agree ahead of time with Trump that Trump should run as an independent to be included in the debates. Once the last debate is over, a Grand Deal is struck, in which whoever between Romney and Trump is further ahead in the polls claims the other as his running mate.

I just really, really, really, really, really, really want to see Trump destroy the President in a public debate, but I'm really, really, really, really, really, really not sure I want him to be the president himself.

And, Jeb Bush? Heck, he's now coming out, like his brother did, with "solutions for all children's behinds." As if the bar for education is so low, people don't know studid kids from the "rest of 'em."

And, the fact that at no time in history ... even among the Chinese! Is everyone qualified for academics.

The good news? Donald Trump TERRIFIES the Obama camp. Plouffe goes poof. And, there is no magic dragon.

I don't predict who the nominee will be anymore. I didn't believe McCain could be nominated, but clearly I was wrong. And I don't listen to anyone who hasn't been right at least half of the time. Neither should you (that's the collective "you").

Another pointless poll. I do wish people would wake up and realize these polls are not valid predictors at this point. Americans are not actually going to a) vote for Trump in the GOP primary or b) vote for Trump over Obama in the general. It's like polling Charlie Sheen for president. It ain't gonna happen. Meaningless media-driven narrative.

Mitt Romney doesn't matter. He should save his money and forget it. It's not going to happen.

Trump is a joke, but I guess I don't mind the show, since it is just a show. A fake tan and a combover. Can't miss that.

Huckabee. Huckabee? Whatever. It goes like this:

Sarah announces. There's a "squirmish" over whether we'd really go there. The Tea Party solidifies behind her and then we drag the rest of you, kicking and screaming, to the realization that if you want to win - if you want to be done with Obama and the Democrats - you get behind her, too.

The Huckster is a big-government populist. Make of it what you will, but that's what he is.

And I--an evangelical Christian--am already on the record as saying the only thing that could have gotten me to vote for Hillary (remember when she was considered a shoo-in?) was if the R's ran Huckabee?

And I'm perfectly fine with Trump helping to push Romney off the stage, as long as he himself bows out afterward.

Kirk Parker, why would Trump leave the race after dispatching Romney? It would be the greatest ego boost in the history of that man's ego boosts. And he'd want more.

If he's not polling well, Trump doesn't run. A couple of early losses, and Trump drops out. I don't think he has the heart to keep plugging away. Bluster only works when you're a front-runner.

Isn't the GOP switching away from winner-take-all for the 2012 primaries? This changes things for candidates who aren't leading after the first few races, and probably benefits those who are in it for the long haul -- like Romney and Pawlenty.

I think The Donald running as an Independent is just talk on his part. Somehow, I don't even see him running in the primaries. He has fun being a celebrity and this is part of that.

That said, a lot of his points resonate with people. Like it or not, Neal Abercrombie opened up a can of sleeping worms when he couldn't find the birth cert and Trump is asking the same thing more people now than before are asking, "What's he got to hide?".

Add that to his economic nationalism ("We shouldn't kowtow to the Saudi and the Red Chinese"), and he makes news. What some smart Conservative ought to do is start agreeing with him on these points and make them his/her own.

Trump is interesting because his business experience trumps Mittens reputed business sense. And then Trump will have no problem actually doing what the Tea Party wants to see done, which is to fire them all in DC and start over. And Trump is a real Presbyterian and as such carries in his heart the original self governing tradition in American politics, that never hesitates to kill off empires of kings and popes alike. Call him a clown all you want, but Trump is a very intelligent strategist who has no trouble giving clear orders. Add to that his confrontational style, which helps to calm the paranoia that Obama has aroused on the right, and it looks like the GOP just found its goldylocks leader.

Nineteen percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents [...] support Trump for next year's GOP presidential nomination.

More than four in ten Republicans say they would not like to see Trump toss his hat in the ring

The correct way to interpret the above information is not "Trump is tied for first place". It is "Trump hasn't got a chance in hell of winning the nomination". Huckabee's supporters are also outnumbered by people who don't want him to run, although not as much.

What these polls tell us is that there is no clear front-runner at this point. That's not surprising -- has there ever been a clear opposition-party nominee this early?

Mark Levin"Trump is NOT the real deal. He will get Obama re-elected. This is not a game. This is not a circus. He is not a conservative. He was happy to donate to Schumer, Weiner, & Emanuel campaigns last year. He was pro-choice recently and now claims to be pro-life. He sounds more & more like Ross Perot. If he runs as an Independent, Obama wins. We should not encourage this."

Romney has the best resume except that he cannot get far enough from Romneycare. That is a bridge too far.

The GOP cannot nominate someone with no more experience than Obama had as the election will revolve around competence plus spending. That rules out Bachman and probably Palin. The nominee has to be a governor, preferably with more than one term. That means Daniels.

I've always found Romney to just be inherently unlikeable. I think we need fresh faces in the arena, and unfortunately we aren't getting any...well, other than Trump, which may explain in part why he's polling relatively high right now. People are just looking for someone else.

I still think Trump is doing performance art here. I doubt he's all that interested in being president, and I think many of the polls are picking up the aggressive mood of the Tea Party movement. It's still early to talk about 2012, and people are just having some fun at the expense of pollsters.

For me, Trump plays the same kind of role that Sarah Palin does: I love to see them bloody the opposition, but I'd never, you know, actually prefer to vote for either of them. At least for president.

Huckabee cannot win the nomination. He's not strong on principle, and while he might get some attention from social conservatives, those issues aren't high on the list. Romney has his own set of issues. We won't have a real grip on who is doing what until late this summer. Until then, any polls you see are just expressing pre-election restlessness.

The time for Romney was 2008, and he could have won, but after seeing the cost of a big government Republican followed by a bigger government Democrat, he's entirely the wrong resume, and it's entirely his own fault. Big government Repubs are dinosaurs now. Good riddens.

I hope one of the young guns in the Repub party gets talked into it. That could win. People are ready for youth and energy, but with a reasoned, and realistic approach. None of this holding back the rising oceans bullshit.

The message needs to be I will do what needs done, and what works. You want fairy tales or leadership on your morality, fight it out among yourselves. I've got my own job to do, and it won't be on the golf course.

Trump is making it possible for Hillary to consider running in opposition. Trump is a NY liberal with balls of brass which he is using to derail BHO. He says what a lot of people think, thus the good standing in the meaningless polls. He is not going to spend one dollar on running himself. This is a great opportunity for self promotion with a cause.

I really fail to see why anybody thinks Romney should be a front runner for '12. He went nowhere in '08 in a field where he should have stood out as sucessful businessman and popular former governor of a blue state. His positioning is worse this year with Pawlenty and Daniels as potential candidates.

Huckabee has a fine sense of humor and an easy way with people. He has genuine political skills and has held executive office. In many ways, he is the anti-Obama. Plush, not skinny. Knowable not knowledgeable. Accessible not aloof. Straight-forward not nuanced. There is nothing ambiguous about him or his background. I can see his appeal.....The fact that someone like Donald Trump can even be considered a Presidential candidate reveals how much disenchantment there is with Obama. At any rate, he is like Obama in that he is an outsider and an experiment. Please. No more experimental Presidencies.

Crack and all the other Palin fans will find a lot to love in Bachmann.

A friend of mine is a slightly crazed Palin fan but severely dislikes Bachmann.

She says Bachmann is trying to capitalize on Palin fandom, but gets sort of miffed if she is not the center of attention. FWIW.

BTW, all of you who dislike the govt micromanaging would do wise to avoid Huckabee like the plague. I doubt anybody who is currently not an officeholder will get anywhere in the primaries, though, so that leaves out Trump, Huckabee, and Palin.

In all honesty, I just don't care anymore. We're pretty much screwed and all I can see regardless of who is going to be President is massive across the board tax increases to pay for the multi-trillion dollar party we have accumulated.

@ William...Experimental Presidents have included Lincoln, TR, and Truman. A man who could rise to the occasion and communicate and lead in a national emergency was more important than a careful handicapping from his lifetime experience as President. Just make sure he is an American, or an Alaskan.

Trump running for the GOP is like Oprah Winfrey running for the Democrats. They are only popular because of name recognition. But once voters get a look at exactly where they stand on the issue [and I mean all voters] they will run away.

I do find it sort of humorous that at this stage the Republicans only have Trump and Huckabee. I am not so sure the GOP is serious about taking the Presidency in 2012.

Maybe Bloomberg has secretly recruited Trump to run for president under his supposedly centrist "No Labels" organization. This organization exists solely to throw the election to Obama. Trump's task is to say crazy things (e.g. birtherism) in order to portray Republicans as extramist. Then when he is rejected in the primarys, he will run under the No Labels organization, siphening votes off from the Republicans, thus throwing the election to Obama. Trump then gets his crony capitalist rewards from Obama.

"Rove has already unwittingly predicted that Obama will be re-elected."

Oh, Matt, you're so adorable.

Someone talking hypotheticals is not "predicting" anything except within the narrow conditions they're discussing. Would Hillary run for President? Not in 2012... but in 2016.

Besides which, that would be equally true if Obama lost in 2012.

And only a silly person makes a prediction about who will win in 2012 without hedging it. My prediction is that if my kids find jobs before next year that we'll get Obama again. If my kids don't find jobs he'll still have an incumbant's advantage, but he could well lose if the Republican candidate isn't completely incompetent.

You and the rest of the teabagging fools can whine and bitch about it from now until the actual election, but president Obama will be re-elected...and most of you know it, too.

Two years of incessant whining about what a h-o-r-r-i-b-l-e job the president is doing...and how much better the GOP could handle running the show...and look at potential candidates the right has come up with.

@ Lake Level...If it is secret, how do you know about it? You underestimate The Donald if you can only see Trump loving a crook's bribe so much he will throw an election to Obama. Obama's first 2 years has already nearly destroyed the American middle class's dollar valued assets. People like Trump mainly want to stop this systematic, humiliating destruction of the capitalist system they enjoy. Trump is a very proud man, and therefore Obama is in for one hell of a fight over Obama's assault on Trump's world.

Is that what you think I was saying? Sorry to be unclear. No, what I mean is that Palin, as a candidate, probably won't survive the resulting media sh*tstorm in the minds of all the "moderate"/"centrist"/"uncommitted"/"not paying attention" voters. No doubt the effort would considerably degrade the media's already degraded status--perhaps even be the auto-coup-de-grace for the dinosaurs--but Palin would end up losing enough votes among the non-committed that she'd lose.

Still, if it came along with veto-proof (or nearly so) majorities in the House and Senate, it might be a worthwhile tradeoff.

Heaven help us. I've held my nose to vote for plenty of Republicans (every election as a matter of fact), but I draw the line at Huckleberry. Won't do it. Trump has no chance getting the nomination. Best he can do is spoiler. Who ya gonna spoil, Donald?

Lake Level Low - "Jeremy: No one is jumping in as front runner because the Press is still in the bag for Obama."

Right.

It's the "MSM"...and has nothing at all to do with the lame potential GOP candidates.

C'mon...are the teabaggers here actually saying they would support a ticket. to run for President of teh United States...with Trump, Bachmann, Palin, the Huckster, or any number of other fools throwing their names into the hat?

Kirk Parker - "No, what I mean is that Palin, as a candidate, probably won't survive the resulting media sh*tstorm in the minds of all the "moderate"/"centrist"/"uncommitted"/"not paying attention" voters."

Crack and all the other Palin fans will find a lot to love in Bachmann.

Nope, not the same thing, and I'll accept no substitutes. If Palin doesn't run, we lose - again.

Synova,

I think that Mark Levin fails to trust regular folks to have a brain.

Naw, he just has a low tolerance for foolishness. Trump got on my nerves for a minute, too, but then I was like "What the hell?" and decided to enjoy the show because nobody can stop it, right? The fact people are already asking me about him, like he's for real, is starting to annoy me all over again - because it speaks to how unserious we are as a people. I'm chillin' until Palin announces because nothing's for real until then.

Shanna,

I don't dislike Bachmann, I just don't love her, y'know? A win for Palin is a win for me and everything I've fought for - not just an election, or conservatism, but the whole ball of wax. When you get away from the stupid shit (she said "squirmish") there's nothing about Palin I dislike or distrust, so far, and a lot I like and want to see more of. (I'll do anything to elevate a woman in this country who doesn't make me ashamed of it.) I don't get that same sense of confidence about Bachmann.

Hey Jeremy, how about I take a crap, which you can place next to Biden, that way you'll have three real shits running this time?

Trump has more than one show, as I discovered last evening when, channel-flipping, I accidentally stumbled upon "Donald J. Trump's Fabulous World of Golf" on The Golf Channel. Among other things featured a Celebrity Roast sponsored by (I think) Comedy Central, and he made a [pretty good] joke about his own hair as part of his--well, they called it rebuttal, but in any case, it was the part at the end where he got to respond.

Count me in with those who want to see a republican senate, the current republican house, and Mr Obama reelected--not because he deserves it, he is a jug eared ignorant clown, but it would serve to emasculate government. The less government we have the better.

Crack Head - Here's what the rest of America thinks about your little Princess...and GFL:

Sarah Palin, perhaps the most closely watched of all potential 2012 Republican presidential candidates, is viewed in an unfavorable light by 60 percent of those questioned in a new Bloomberg News poll.

AND...

Within the 60 percent who disapproved of Palin, 38 percent said they had "very unfavorable" feelings about her.

She was viewed favorably by 28 percent.

WOW...a whopping 28% viewed her favorably.

Oh, and...

45 percent said president Obama had a "better vision" for the nation's economic future than the Republican opposition. One-third (33 percent) of the sample preferred the GOP approach.

(Bloomberg's survey of 1,001 adults was taken between March 4-7 by the Iowa firm, Selzer & Co. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.)

Jeremey--thanks for the compliment boy; I never object to being called a racist by idiots. As to my specifics are you denying he isnt jug eared? lord those are the biggest ears since dumbo; and clown? again, the evidence for my assertion is quite aparent: see for example his conduct of foreign policy.

Calling me a racist bothers me not, so keep it up. Bothers me not. You have a good day there son, and make sure you hold your mommy's hand when you cross the street

Huckabee has a fine sense of humor and an easy way with people. He has genuine political skills and has held executive office. In many ways, he is the anti-Obama. Plush, not skinny. Knowable not knowledgeable. Accessible not aloof. Straight-forward not nuanced. There is nothing ambiguous about him or his background.

Let's assume that's all true. Fine; now we've established Huckabee has a great personality.

... and the reason to vote for him is? We're electing a President, not a Best Friend in Chief. Huckabee is left-wing on economic issues. Yeah, ok, he appeals to the god-guns-and-gays wing of the Republican Party, but those people had their turn already. Any candidate who isn't rock-solid on economic issues shouldn't even be under consideration.

I don't even think about the Presidency. As a conservative, I want to get rid of people like McCain, Lugar, Hatch, and Graham and others. The present group of Republicans that have been there forever, need to be dis-elected. They are just as much at fault as the Democrats.

The poll numbers on the right wing true believers vs. Obama are dismal. Could be that the religious "Base" of the Republicans are bound and determined to have their Goldwater, McGovern...or more recently Kerry/Sharron Angle/Perky Christine moment to "send a message!"

A message I am sure Obama will look at and curl his lip in a superior Harvard way as he resumes his short list reworking for whom he will replace Scalia, Kennedy, and Ginsberg with after his 2nd Inauguration.

The nomination is pretty much Palin's if she wants it. As is the presidency. I can't stand her accent and dread having to listen to it for eight years but I think it is inevitable. I say this because she is the only person who might run who has a lick of sense and who doesn't lie constantly.

We are going to have high unemployment, high gas prices, inflation and quite possibly a double dip recession before the next election. Add to that the fact that Obamacare will be starting to kick in and Obama will be in danger of not carrying a single state. If Palin runs then the parallel with Carter will be perfect.

Obama had better pray the Supreme Court knocks down Obamacare and he better hope the Saudis don't stay as pissed at him as they are now because they can single-handedly tank his ass by how much oil they pump.

Please, God, can we not just draft Mitch Daniels and be done with it? (Of course, he might do what IIRC Fritz Hollings said he would do if Mondale nominated him as a VP candidate in '84: "Flee to Mexico and fight extradition.")

What is with the comparison to Perot here? Perot differs from Trump in the (to this voter) critical sense that Perot knew what he was talking about. Trump does not have any fargin' idea what he's talking about.

Can't someone buy him off and have Bloomberg run instead? Bloomberg is not a wholesome prospect as President, but compared to Trump?

wv: dizugg. Which is so funky gangsta that I practically want to copyright it, before someone more entrepreneurial than I does.

Yeah, except for the part where Rove says "we'll know if she leaves the administration by 2014 or 2015..."

He seems to be making an assumption that Obama will still be president. Or he forgot there will be an election in 2012 that might go to a GOP candidate. It seems to me - since he is Karl Rove - he would say something like, "If Obama wins a re-election then we will see what Clinton does in 2014 or 2015." He skipped right over that.

Therefore it's pretty easy to speculate that he doesn't think there are any worthy GOP contenders. He would be correct. At least at this point.

Crack Head - Here's what the rest of America thinks about your little Princess...

Is this your first rodeo? None of that matters. Pull up Reagan's numbers and tell me how "loved" he was before he won. If you think polls are an indicator of anything but the moment - or enough to shake conviction - then you know nothing about politics.

I was around in the 80's and I can recall Reagan and the mood of the country quite well.

This is not like it was in 1979 when Carter was president. As much as some may like to evoke that era and a comparison between Obama and Carter the political dynamics are very different.

Also Reagan was rather likable and at least he had a heck of a track record. He was also way ahead of Bush in the polls and it played out that way. Palin does not have the appeal of Reagan in her own party much less the entire country.

If I am right, the huge Trump bounce will be confirmed as real by drawing Journolist like coordinated attacks from every political pundit that Obama and Rove have under their control. So lets wait a few weeks and then give it a final score.

Forget what the liberals are saying, because they'll portray passion for any conservative candidate as drinking the Kool-Aid (if only as a strategy to dampen that passion) and now hear what I'm about to say as my best clear-eyed assessment of the situation - and my reason for saying Palin is our gal:

Herman Cain doesn't stand a chance. He can be an exciting speaker, but I, at least, can't see him leading the nation any more than Ralph Abernathy could lead the civil rights movement after the death of MLK. Ralph wasn't MLK and Herman Cain, likewise, isn't made of presidential timber. Not a bad man, not a stupid man, but still chitlin' circuit as these things go.

Allen West is a great man - no doubt - but I'll say the same way about him that I said about Obama once upon a time (when I could at least allow that, if people wanted him, I would give him a chance) and that is to wait four more years. There's something about West that's arrogant, like Obama, and too anxious to get there, like he's not comfortable in his skin without praise, and frankly, I don't like it. I get it - he's the master of all he surveys - but not yet. And I want a president who's fighting for us, not for themselves, so I say he's got to earn it from us, not just show up and get it handed to him as another of the possible black guys.

Huckabee, Trump, Romney. Manny, Moe & Jack. No, no, no. Period.

Christie ain't running or we might have something. Pawlenty has nothing. I still have no idea why his name keeps coming up.

Bachmann, as Palin's VP, is a winning combination. Not as a candidate herself. She's wild-eyed and just one genetic step away from those big haired Christian women of the '70s. I'm not knocking her for that, not saying there's anything wrong with it, but, if I can have a president that's reflective of America today, I'm taking her.

No, for me it's Sarah Palin, because she sucks all the air out of the room - which is what a president should do. The liberals know it's her - that's why they've already tried to destroy her. Forget this "look at the polls" or "look at her unfavorables" bullshit, because they KNOW, or else they wouldn't be looking at them. (You don't watch the numbers of people with "no chance".) Sarah Palin strikes fear in the hearts of everyone this candidate - this historical candidate - should:

Liberals, Democrats, NewAgers, RINOS, and squishy Independents.

These groups are the problem with this country. They are the weakest links. They are the ones we need to either sway or shut up. (I'm for the latter.) They are the ones who are swayed by politically correct arguments and a randomly flung "racist". They are the ones who are always ready to give extra weight to what people and countries, who aren't Americans in the United States, think. None of them have the rest of us in their bones.

Sarah Palin does. And she still knows who she is, too (even with all the media attention, I haven't detected a single case of the Bigheads) and she knows where she's from, and why it's Number One and comes first.

She's not afraid to kill. That's important, because we're at war, and, just like with Bush, the liberals' demoralizing jabbering has given our enemies just enough of a wounded image of her that they're going to test her. You betcha. And she'll pass. And the rest of us will say "That's our Sarah."

Name a subject, her loyalties aren't divided anywhere. We'll finally have a president we won't have to worry where she stands. Abortion? Get out of here. Economics? She'll call the law firm of Stop, Spending & Cut. There is no topic I can think of that I don't already have a feeling for what she thinks, because it's what we all think. She's a conservative. A real conservative.

Rove is like Carville, or Dick Morris - a genius at his moment, but somehow they lose the insight they had when they were young and hungry; like child prodigies that grow into average adults. There's nothing wrong with them - just nothing special. Or maybe they just got lucky way back.

It is very suspicious that there haven't been huge attacks on Trump yet.

Pawlenty, bet on it.

He may seem mild mannered and boring but he would tear Obama apart in a debate. His sheer competence will stand in stark contrast to Obama. He won in MINNESOTA in 2006! Minnesota hasn't gone Republican for Pres since Nixon. How did that happen? stay tuned.

It sounds like you have too blind a following for Palin. Which is fine but not necessarily realistic to her bid for the White House.

You should also note that while you may hate "Liberals, Democrats, NewAgers, RINOS, and squishy Independents" they make up at least 50.1% of the vote in the states a candidate needs to win the Presidency.

There simply are not enough hard right wing voters out there for Palin [or Bachmann!] to win a general election. Remember that Reagan didn't sell himself as a hard right candidate. [And, in fact, he wasn't].

Palin has already showed her cards. Even if she lightened up a bit to try and appeal to the independent voters they would not buy it.

I like Palin for the same reasons you write so well, and I trust she would be a great President. But, I have yet to see her perform as needed, face to face, with an adversary, although she was impressive in the debates against a guy with three decades of practice doing it compared to her couple weeks of prep. I need to see more of that now to see if she has matured to the strange ways of national politics. I just don't know yet if she able to knock em down when they set em up, which they will. If she is as good as I think she can be, it will be devastating on the media, or if not, it will be the reverse. I need to see more from her. I trust her character and principles, but we both know that don't matter till after the election.

As for West, I disagree with you. He's fine, and his arrogance is exactly what I like. Unlike Obama he has earned his, and in big, uncompromising, manly ways. This is a strong man, and Palin is unmistakenly a strong woman. An excellent ticket for me, and a nightmare for our enemies.

Gun Owners hate him because he favored/pushed the so-called "assault weapon" ban in Massachusetts. Obamacare opponents know that it is based on the financial disaster called "Romneycare" that Romney forced on Massachusetts.

She says Bachmann is trying to capitalize on Palin fandom, but gets sort of miffed if she is not the center of attention. FWIW.

That's an amazingly ignorant statement.

I don't remember the specifics of the reason she felt that way although there was some sort of example given. I only offer that in response to the comment that a Palin Fan=a Bachmann fan. I don't think that is anywhere near true.

I don't have anything against Bachmann personally, nor against Palin, but I don't think either of them are going to do well as a serious candidate in 2012. But we'll see, I suppose.

No, for me it's Sarah Palin, because she sucks all the air out of the room - which is what a president should do.

I want to say, Crack, that there are a lot of things I like about Palin, but if she were serious about the Presidency this time around I would have expected her to stay governor for at least a full term, maybe a term and a half. Baring that, run for Senate or something else. Build her resume. Build her experience.

I understand all the reasons put out that she didn't do it and I'm impressed at her facebook postings being so effective. She gets points for that. I just think she needed some serious experience to go with it. I would be more comfortable with her and with her own sense of the seriousness of the office if she had.

Today, she would be just as free to opine about things, and I think she would be less vulnerable to the 'quitter' BS.

Also, she's be a damn good Senator. We could use more of them. Imagine if Palin was hitting reid on the budget. Most publications aren't even mentioning his central role.

She'd have very little time as Senator when running for President, but I think it would be OK. I still think she lacks sufficient executive experience (not just to be credible to voters, but to handle a very tough job). But we won't get any perfect choices.

Bible-thumpers like Huckabee and Bachmann are the biggest threat to America right now, more dangerous than any terrorist could dream of being. If they gain power within the Republican party, Obama will easily win reelection, and the well-being of our country will be finally flushed down the toilet in the name of Jesus like a bag of heroin with the SWAT about to break down the front door.

The war we face that needs everyone's focus is the War for the Republican Party. The people who call themselves "social conservatives" but who, in reality, want nothing but big-government business-as-usual... they need to be marginalized, they need to be sat in a corner and told to shut the hell up until the clock turns 2013. Otherwise they will destroy the American Republic.

And Romney? Besides being bred of pure religiously-inspired anti-American destructiveness, he has a arrogant off-putting attitude of entitlement... geez, he really deserves that nomination, doesn't he? Nevermind the Massachusetts healthcare debacle that he put in place, nevermind that he is a product of and proponent for the established interests that have inflated the federal government to its present enormous size...

"Bible-thumpers like Huckabee and Bachmann are the biggest threat to America right now, more dangerous than any terrorist could dream of being. If they gain power within the Republican party, Obama will easily win reelection,"

Strange that the same person said both these same things, but there you go... someone really thinks this poorly.

Remember, kids, don't do drugs. They might make you paranoid and out of touch with reality.

If only Bachmann and her horrible, crazy religion were the greatest threat to this country, but that's absolutely stupid. Our country has thrived on much more rigid interpretations of Christianity. I keep asking people to explain what about Bachmann's faith justifies their intolerance, but it appears that they are just bigots.

We're going to have to wait and see, but I think what some see as "the hard right" is actually the middle, but we've moved so far to the left appearances are deceiving. Most of my liberal friends, being finger-to-the-wind types, are already assuring me they're now more conservative than they let on. (During the darkest days of the Bush years, when the public heckling was merciless, they'd still pull me aside, individually, and ask why I was so sure when they weren't. Now, with hindsight, I not only look intelligent again but brave to them: they remember my isolation and respect it.)

Elections are funny, producing a weird get-real re-ordering of things, and the demand for "change" will be even stronger this time because the situation's more desperate. Kick-starting us out of this is on the agenda, I think, and love her or hate her, only Palin holds the promise of that. She's the total package and will give conservatives, at least, everything we want - that's worth fighting for.

I agree with Bagoh, she's going to have to come out new - Sarah 2.0 - but I think she's up to it. She's already won a lot of respect from quarters that, either, thought they'd killed her or never thought she'd amount to much. She definitely wasn't expected to still be in play. But she is and I think that, too, says a lot. (I also agree with Bagoh that a Palin/West ticket would not only be "excellent" but historic. I've bookmarked the page, buddy.)

Just a few points (looking at Revenant's comments): if you don't HAVE a base, you've got nothing, so don't confuse the "popularity with the base" - especially when it's the Tea Party - as being a weight holding her down. You gotta have somebody and, right now, we're the absolute best somebody's to have. If you look at the Nov. elections, and now the budget battle, anything's possible with this backing.

And, for the last time, fuck what any poll says now - polls don't win elections - they take the pulse of the moment and she ain't in it yet. You can hardly find her anywhere which, after the last media blitz (almost to the point of over-exposure) tells me she's monitoring her image pretty well: She can re-appear (at some point) fresher, with policies, and on the attack. Sarahcuda is what I'm expecting.

Lastly, I don't know about about you, Rev, but between going over a cliff and letting Palin take the wheel, I think - when an election forces the issue - the outliers will have to do a gut-check and go with the woman the rest of us ain't afraid of. Just as it wasn't publicly cool to say Bush was right before, it's not going to be so easy to say Sarah's wrong when it can be seen she's not alone. People are weird that way.

Shanna, that "she quit" line is so obviously a lie I wonder why it's still around, but, considering it IS a lie, it's just another arrow she has to shoot at those who constructed it. Integrity counts for a lot in American elections and the other side ('General Betray Us") has revealed themselves to be of very low character. They may not think that it matters now, but it will later - because this ain't 2008. And elephants never forget.

I'm in a waiting mode, watching the clowns, prepared for the main event. Obama's come out early because he's weak and he knows it. Palin's letting events dictate her timing which, considering she's up against the POTUS, is smart - keep the window of opportunity for when she can be attacked as limited as possible. Right now, I see a campaign being played as masterfully as Obama's in 2008, the only questions being has she done her homework? (If she has, we've got a real contest on our hands.) And are the rest of you up for fighting for what YOU want?

For the record, despite my statement about Bachmann being a step away from the Christian ladies of the '70s, she (and that) doesn't scare or bother me. Please don't confuse me with Julius. I, too, think his type of thinking only reveals how out of touch he is with the American character. He doesn't understand this country, which is unfortunate, because - being at odds with it in ignorance - he deprives it of his strength and misinterprets it for mistaken others. He's like a bad propaganda machine.

Do you really want a woman President in these times? No, no, no... Not with the country in the terrible condition it is in. We need someone with cojones, literally, free of the testosterone-draining influence of Jesus.

Plus, Palin is the Establishment. She won't effect the big changes that are needed. She has not demonstrated a capacity for independent action.

Ever since ending up on the losing side of the 2008 election, Palin has had the opportunity to be the strong voice of opposition to Obama's terribleness. Many people looked to her and hoped she would speak up. Instead, she hung out in Alaska and did a reality show and only dropped a few little tidbits in speeches here and there. Very little action, you see? That's an unfortunate symptom of no cojones.

You said that it was "a lie" that she quit. Well, of course it's NOT a lie that she quit her governorship (all the arguments supporting that notwithstanding), and you know that. You're engaging in spin of your own in that you mean--but aren't explicitly stating--that she didn't quit in terms of her particular conservative bona fides and the mission that's larger than holding a particular office. I get your position and the POV behind that, but still: She did, in fact, quit her governorship, and the person who pointed that out--Shanna, I think, apologies if I'm wrong--was neither promulgating a lie nor engaging in one. Your values cut both way, too, Crack.

Kick-starting us out of this is on the agenda, I think, and love her or hate her, only Palin holds the promise of that. She's the total package and will give conservatives, at least, everything we want - that's worth fighting for.

What's the basis for this belief? She was a pretty ordinary Republican politician when she was governor, and she hasn't done jack squat since then besides star on reality TV. Sure, she's talked a good game, but so have ten thousand other Republican politicians.

Just a few points (looking at Revenant's comments): if you don't HAVE a base, you've got nothing, so don't confuse the "popularity with the base" - especially when it's the Tea Party - as being a weight holding her down.

You misread me. The base isn't holding her down. The problem is that basically everyone *but* the hardcore Republican base thinks she'd be a bad President. If you want to see what happens when a politician is respected by the hardcore base and nobody else, look at Goldwater '64 and McGovern '72.

Lastly, I don't know about about you, Rev, but between going over a cliff and letting Palin take the wheel, I think - when an election forces the issue - the outliers will have to do a gut-check and go with the woman the rest of us ain't afraid of.

What outliers? The only outliers are people who think Palin should be President. There's a solid cross-party consensus that she shouldn't.

If your point is that Obama will be so unpopular that the Republicans can run anyone with a pulse and still win the Oval Office then color me skeptical. But in the event that he's that unpopular, why not nominate someone with more experience and better credibility? The aforementioned Michele Bachmann, for example. Or Scott Walker, Chris Christie, Ron Paul, Paul Ryan, etc.

(During the darkest days of the Bush years, when the public heckling was merciless, they'd still pull me aside, individually, and ask why I was so sure when they weren't. Now, with hindsight, I not only look intelligent again but brave to them: they remember my isolation and respect it.)

You don't have to the Crack Emcee to have experienced that!

They are the ones we need to either sway or shut up. (I'm for the latter.)

Your preference for the latter might explain why you aren't particularly effective at doing the former, especially when you get in one of your moods.

(During the darkest days of the Bush years, when the public heckling was merciless, they'd still pull me aside, individually, and ask why I was so sure when they weren't. Now, with hindsight, I not only look intelligent again but brave to them: they remember my isolation and respect it.)

You don't have to the Crack Emcee to have experienced that!

They are the ones we need to either sway or shut up. (I'm for the latter.)

Your preference for the latter might explain why you aren't particularly effective at doing the former, especially when you get in one of your moods.

Not sure why that double-post happened; I didn't try to do that. I only noticed it when when I went back thinking to correct typos in the original; now I think I'll just let 'em be. I know better than to take on Blogger!

Crack: To save you some time should you go on to make a silly assumption, in case you don't know, I did not vote for Barack Obama and have never had a problem in saying that. More tough was abandoning my decision to write in a candidate for president in 2008; instead, I used that #2 pencil to post a vote for McCain--all my issues there, as well, notwithstanding. Which is more than I can say for plenty, just plenty enough, of both conservatives and Republicans alike, known online and offline, and--clearly--a vast many more unknown in either and both places.

Um, why not a woman? And why should she have stuck her neck out when she, alone, was under one of the fiercest media attacks in modern American history? That would've been suicide. Instead she turned it around, to where she's got the upper hand, and the fact she's still standing is proof she made the right decision.

reader_iam,

Spin? She "quit" to get from underneath the frivolous lawsuits the Democrats threw at her. That's not the same thing as the framing her critics put on it, like she said, "Aw shucks, this job sucks/is hard/boring, I'm outta here" and you (and everyone else) know it. That story line makes no sense what-so-ever, which is why I'm amazed it persists in the liberal imagination, even though I know anything can persist in the liberal imagination (We went into Iraq for oil, Scooter Libby outted Valarie Plame, etc.). Sarah Palin left the governorship under duress, but that was the best option under the manufactured circumstances, and I think you guys just keep this BS story going because that lie of "quitting" is the best you got:

She deprived you of a scalp either way.

Revenant,

That "pretty ordinary Republican politician" was the most popular governor in the country when McCain picked her, so, right there, your claim she was "ordinary" is exposed. And she hasn't had to do jack squat since then because - like everyone else - you seem to miss that she's existed under unique circumstances. Name me the other politician the left and the media was out to destroy? Like Julius, you wanted a suicide mission but, sorry, but she didn't do it. It's like you guys won't give her any credit for outfoxing everybody. Whatever. That's the road she's been walking and doing a damned good job of it, so I'm confident she'll keep on stepping around you as you keep demanding she run head-on into a hail of bullets. (You guys are striking me as really politically immature for thinking she'd do that.)

And, considering the conservative ascendency, do you really want to bring up Goldwater?

What outliers? The only outliers are people who think Palin should be President. There's a solid cross-party consensus that she shouldn't.

Yeah, those are the brilliant strategists that handled all but the last two elections so well, right? The guys who kept the RINOs from voting for Obama? You don't get it: This is a different political landscape. They come with the Tea Party or they've got nothing, because we're not going with them. Obama isn't the only unpopular person out there - the Republicans are under the gun as well - or did you miss the meaning of November? Did you miss the import of the budget battle? It's the Tea Party's economic issues - not the Republican Party's - that won the day. If the Republican Party wants to keep winning, they do so on our terms - period. And denying us the candidate of our choice - the only true conservative - is an option.

reader_iam,

Your preference for the latter might explain why you aren't particularly effective at doing the former, especially when you get in one of your moods.

I don't know, my style of conservatism is doing alright these days - I'm feeling pretty good, actually. And yeah, the whole Boomer ethos is to hate on Daddy because he's the one who says "No." I get that. And, except you you guys act like particularly idiotic snots, I'm o.k. to fill that role, since so few other men feel they should act like it. Shit, nobody ever said being a real man or woman was or would be easy. But, hell, it's obvious you guys aren't up to it. Listen to you:

Palin can't win because there's lots of people against her and it'll be hard.

She "quit" to get from underneath the frivolous lawsuits the Democrats threw at her.

And that sucks, but what we're left with is someone who didnt' even serve a full term as governor. What are we supposed to do with that?

(This argument over whether she "Quit" or "Resigned" is just semantics, to me and I'm not sure what the Palin folks think they're accomplishing making a big deal out of it. I got into this exact same argument with my friend.)

He may seem mild mannered and boring but he would tear Obama apart in a debate. His sheer competence will stand in stark contrast to Obama. He won in MINNESOTA in 2006! Minnesota hasn't gone Republican for Pres since Nixon. How did that happen? stay tuned.

I’m still trying to wrap my head around how Pawlenty gets tagged as “boring.” I’ve seen him deliver stump speeches before and everyone I’ve talked to (including those who disagreed with on policy issues) agree that he’s an exceptional speaker. He knows how to connect with people and speaks in a very natural style that isn’t stiff or scripted. He’s generally upfront with he disagrees with people but seems to have mastered the art of disagreeing without being disagreeable. Which is a large part of why despite round the clock media attacks on Pawlenty’s budget cuts and in a year that Republicans were massacred at the polls, a lot of Democrats and independents voted for him.

And that sucks, but what we're left with is someone who didnt' even serve a full term as governor. What are we supposed to do with that?

I’m sympathetic to Governor Palin’s decision to resign after being nearly bankrupted with frivolous lawsuits filed by her political enemies. I think that the decision to resign was probably the least awful choice when in a situation where you know that even when you win by having the suits thrown out, you still lose because you have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

That being said, if she runs, I don’t think she’s going to gain traction among anyone other than her base because she and her supporters are going to have to devote an inordinate amount of time and resources setting the record straight on this issue. It’s an injustice to be sure, but that’s the cold reality.

Also I have a trouble with the idea of nominating someone who previously ran on a losing national ticket. It didn’t work so well for Bob Dole, Walter Mondale, Dan Quayle or John Edwards and I don’t think that Palin’s going to be the one to break the chain.

"(This argument over whether she "Quit" or "Resigned" is just semantics, to me and I'm not sure what the Palin folks think they're accomplishing making a big deal out of it. I got into this exact same argument with my friend.)"

Of course she "quit". The issue of semantics is just that "quit" is assumed to have negative connotations even if it's the exact same action as "resigned."

She "changed the nature of the game" is what she did, and boy did the haters howl. They had her trapped in a corner, you see, and she changed the game geography so it wasn't a corner any more and she wasn't trapped.

Those doing it knew that their tactics were pure perfidity. But they HAD HER and it was GRAND.

She refused to be destroyed by playing someone elses game, and they hate her more for thwarting them. Some people get very pissy when the rules are changed mid-play.

Might as well call her a cheater as a quitter.

But hey, it's basketball. Nothing says you have to continue to play when the other side has found a loophole in the rules and are exploiting it. Everyone knows they aren't playing "fair" and continuing to play simply legitimizes them to no possible benefit.

Notice how the other side spins "we won"? They dare not declare the utter victory of their tactic, because NO ONE would approve of their tactic, so they pretend (and we can count down to the person who posts just that fantasy) that she *could have* prevailed if she wasn't a quitter, that it was just about her being a weenie.

I do disagree with Thorley that any time will need to be spent by her or her campaign (if she runs, which no one hardly suggests any more, which doesn't really mean anything) trying to explain what happened.

It's a bit like harping on Obama's birth certificate. The chances of Palin's opponents bringing it up are pretty good, but stupid. Republican opponents will no doubt say it's "too bad" or that she needs more experience (particularly if they have more experience) but the Democrats, at least the voting base, will do what our local liberal sorts will do, and that is call her a quitter and come across as haters... and *she* doesn't have to defend against that because other people will point out the truth.

There was no limit to the lawsuits that could be brought against Palin and no consequence for bringing frivolous ones. It was a bottomless bucket. The law prohibited Palin from forming a legal defense fund.

No one who *thinks* is under an illusion that she should have stuck that out.

Which leaves only partisan haters.

And we ought to encourage the partisan haters as they reveal themselves.

It's about what WE will allow in our political process. What works is repeated and it is profoundly important to make a stand on this. It's not about Palin. It's about the NEXT person who enters politics.

If we allow this we really and truly DO deserve the politicians we get.

Ok, Synova, I had a whole post that blogger just ate, but basically, as a non-"hater", I wish the people supporting Palin for President would not get bogged down in these semantic games and just state WHY they think she should be elected despite her experience level. Because it turns me off when people start yelling at me for using a factual word because they think it has negative connotations (which it doesn't to me) and it's not really an argument that is likely to win people to your (or her) side.

She "quit" to get from underneath the frivolous lawsuits the Democrats threw at her.

If every Republican politician who was faced with frivolous lawsuits from Democrats resigned, there wouldn't BE any Republican governors, Representatives, Senators, or Presidents.

Honestly, what's going to happen if she became President? You know damned well she'll be faced with all the same crap all over again. Why wouldn't she be? Obama is, Bush was, Clinton was... that's life in politics these days.

No one who *thinks* is under an illusion that she should have stuck that out.

Synova, you've conflating two very different questions.

The first is "does it reflect badly on Palin as a person that she quit halfway through her one and only term as governor". Under the circumstances I would say "no, it doesn't reflect badly on her at all".

The second is "does it reflect badly on Palin as a candidate for the highest executive office that she quit halfway through her one and only term as governor". And the answer to that is "oh HELL yes". I don't care how good her excuse is for only having two years of relevant experience. The fact remains that she's got two years of relevant experience.

There are plenty of solid economic conservatives who have an order of magnitude more executive experience than Palin AND aren't disliked by two out of every three Americans. Pick one.

Because "can she win" and "is she a good choice for President" are two separate questions.

If there was reason to believe she'd be a good President -- and particularly if she was a rarity in that regard -- it would be worth fighting to make her electable. But as she isn't, the fact that she'll never be President isn't a problem.

I don't think that I'm conflating questions since I never asked "does she have enough experience."

More would have been better.

What I think is the most important point, though, is simply do we want to encourage the same sort of tactics for the next person and the next?

Too many people sort of moan and sigh and say it's all so very bad but she's "damaged goods" or some such and I think accepting that is a profound problem.

Would you run for public office if all it took was someone else lying about you and you were considered "damaged?" No sane person would set themselves up for that. I expect and rather like the notion of politics as rude and rough and tumble, but I don't see any good or logical reason to just give in and let the other side have this particular tactic. It can be denied them, or it can be adopted in kind.